That doesn't mean a two tier system doesn't exist - it just means you got served by one tier. Maybe even the appropriate one.

a professor of marketing and former CBC bureaucrat
an Aboriginal lawyer who practices corporate law with a major Bay Street law firm
a chartered accountant
an information technology executive
an advertising agency executive
the president of one of Canada's largest real estate companies who is famous for his hostile takeover bids
three former journalists and broadcasting executives.
Recognize yourself in the mix? Recognize any champions for public health care or any public programs?

In fact, I do recognize myself in the mix: a passionate Canadian with stories to tell.

I like your inclusion of "three former journalists". Huh? The CBC does a substantial amount of journalism - doesn't it make sense to have former journalists as directors? Advocates for what the CBC does? Makes sense to me.

Like it or not the broadcasting industry is being changed by technology on an almost constant basis. Would you prefer to hire an IT executive on some Liberal patronage contract as a consultant?

Believe it or not, I actually tuned into CBC Newsworld over the Christmas break and watched this report.
It was mind blowing. Not because I didn't already understand we are already into a multi-tier system, but because I was shocked that the CBC was revealing this.
It's a stunning production and I have given credit to the CBC earlier on this site.
Our system is a sham, now everyone knows it.
I can't wait for this to have further ramifications for all the liberal hypocrites in Canada.
Ha ha ha, the Emporer wears no clothes.

I saw that trash.
I can issue no more stinging indictment of that bold-faced fraser institute propaganda than ron erwin's slatheringly eager seal of approval. (see above)
If he found merit in this program one can only imagine what utter clap-trap it is.

What trash ? It was a CBC program, how can it be trash ?
It actually only showed reality, real events, the way it actually is.
All the stuff not covered by our UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE ???
You are in self denial jesterjogger.
I urge everyone to watch this, it's kinda like watching a video of your mother having sex with someone other than your father.
I know you find this hard to believe, but believe it my friend.

Duncan claims "we've been swallowing the Medicare myth, saluting an emperor who has no clothes (over a picture of Tommy Douglas) …

We all know Tommy Douglas is a villain, but without clothes? ughhh

Hey brain get a clue. The majority of health care costs incurred on the Medicare system on average for everyone occur in the last year of life. Since everyone dies no matter how much preventitive medicine they engage in, changing the particular date of when those costs occur is unlikely to save money. Does a healthier longer life incur less cost to the medical system than an unhealthy short life, or do the two balance out? I don't know of any scientific studies that measure those two things. The majority of cost, however, does appear to be the ever increasing number and cost of technological means physicans can use to prolong life.

Well being alive is arguably a root cause of most disease. But tell me, where did you get your information? Was it a peer reviewed set of repeated scientific studies across large samples of various human populations? I seriously doubt it. Do you understand the complex nature of disease and the various means by which something classified as a disease can occur in humans? Frankly, your quote is the kind of pseudo-scientific garbage that regularly spills from the lips of alternative health care practicioners. Subclinical deficiences (usually vitamin deficiences) and acidosis (in other words poor eating habits) are contributing factors in many diseases. But genetics, exposure to pathogens, various environmental factors such as pollution, and neglect of sanitation and food and water saftey also can have far greater impact on the incidence of disease.

You may intuitively believe that people who are healthy most of their lives cost Medicare less, but that doesn't make it factually accurate; again this is especially true when you consider where the average bulk of health care costs on the Medicare system are incurred per person: at the very end of life.

Greater public health will have a huge positive impact is on the economy in general. A healthy public will contribute better to the general welfare of an economy. But providing the services needed for improving public health isn't necessarily a role that physicians, or Medicare should be performing. Doctors don't collect garbage. Doctors don't inspect food. Should doctors be the ones to proactively educate the public on what constitutes a healthy diet?

The primary problems with health care in Canada, especially costs and access, are due to a shortage of physicians, and an emphasis on quantity of life in medical treatment over quality of life, particularly at the end of life where palliative care is terribly neglected. Billing fraud is also likely a more significant problem than most people realize.

Finally , if you want to decrease the technological costs associated with care, then you have to reduce the length of intellectual property rights on pharmaceuticals and medical machinery, which essentially function as a supply side price controls.

The creation of a two-tier health care system is about physicians and business people who want to profit from providing the wealthy with better health care, while still making money from the public system. That Gutstein takes the time to point out in his article the hidden interests of those at the CBC who created the pro-private health care documentary "Medicare Shmedicare" is worth knowing. Your incoherent rant on health care is a rather large distraction from the issue.

I agree with Ron Erwin whole-heartedly. I was pleasantly surprised that such a good documentary was even aired by the CBC.

Tommy Douglas' idea (wasn't even his idea) has come and gone. Medicare works, but not very well. It's not getting better either - demographics will see to that. If the truth hurts, so be it. It's high time we move off this have-any-colour-as-long-as-it's-black dogma.

Besides, as some smart person once said, "we already have a two-tier system. It's called the United States".

Wake up and smell the coffee Mr. Gutstein.

James Burns, thanks. Very informative and strangely reassuring. I hope you return here often.

Why is it that every time we question Medicare the choice comes down to keeping the system as it is or adopting an American style one? Can anyone name a single member country of the OECD which has a similar system to ours? I lived in Norway and Denmark for 6 years in the 70's and even in these resoundingly social democratic systems I paid a small amount for every doctor visit. In Sweden the largest provider of publically funded private clinics is operated by the Nurse's Union. Face it people - there are going to be a hell of lot of Seniors and the most expensive aspect of care is in the final months/years of living. We ignore this at our peril and no amount of money thrown at the system is going to repair that! Better to look at how other countries outside of the Anglo American model are coming to grips over this. Moreover the State is hypocritical over the issue. If you are injured on the job in British Columbia the Workers' Compensation Board will pay a private clinic to quickly deal with the problem rather than have the patient linger on the public purse (taxpayers) waiting for Medicare to address it.

Kudos to Gutstein for his investigative journalism. He draws some interesting connections.

But our knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "two-tier health care" is contrived. Politicians know that using fear to control the masses always wins votes, and they love to whip us into a frenzy on this one.

The fact is, our system is not working. We are throwing billions more at it every year and we can't keep up. I agree with Brain that we need more of an emphasis on staying healthy. We also need to accept that while every Canadian is equal, someone will always have more money than you, and some less.

In this celebrity culture, we love to follow what the rich and famous pay for their houses, their handbags, their holidays. But spend that money on a knee operation and you're in trouble.

Besides, the second tier is not just for the rich. If you were told, as a friend was, that you "might" have cancer but that you'd have to wait a year for the test to find out, and you had five hundred bucks in the bank, or even five hundred left on your VISA limit, would you not drive across the border to get the test in Seattle tomorrow?

That is where ideological debates about single-tier vs. two tier fail us. The simple fact is we all want to feel like if we get sick our health care system will be there for us. We should be working together to figure out the best way to make that happen, rhetoric be damned.

One of my elderly parents (80+) was in severe chronic pain. The waiting list, just to see the doctor at the specialized pain clinic, was one year. One year that they were supposed to suffer waiting just to see the specialist.

Or: we could pay $900 and visit a private clinic in North Vancouver the following week.

We chose the latter alternative and have never regretted it. The way that public system forces people to wait and wait and wait is criminal.

Newsflash: private health care does not work. "Not work" means for most of the people, most of the time. Not the Fraser Institute version, which means "not immediately and conveniently available to those blessed with lots of money".

To whit, in the US about 1/6-1/5 of the population has NO health insurance - they're waiting times aren't long, they are INFINITE. The #1 cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html , and note last paragraph) of those who are middle class _with_ insurance. All Bostonians I knew when living in their city had little confidence in their system and were scared of getting very sick. and despite not covering about 50,000,000 people _at all_, the US private health care system eats up waaaaaaaaaaayyyy more money than the Canadian system.

that is what "doesn't work" means to most people.

of COURSE our system has problems ! every system everywhere does. you will not find a country that doesn't complain about it. As recent successes in Alberta and BC have shown, the problem of long waiting times for elective surgeries CAN BE SOLVED without much problem, but only if the government wants to.

the latter point is the kicker. I see very little evidence that provinces like BC, Alberta, etc actually _want_ to fix the problem. There backers stand to make an absurd amount of money if the present system "fails" or more correctly, is _made_ to fail.

Perhaps with so much money and so much power and corruption behind the push to make the our health system fail, it might be inevitable that it does so. BUT it is a testament to the stability and veracity of the system that it has withstood the onslaught for so long.

If we don't do everything that we can to support it, then our elderly parents, friends, neighbours, etc will be paying a hell of a lot more than 900 bucks or whatever to get the care they need.

So very well said, bun. One of the best things I've read on Tyee.

"It's not working" is the the repetitive mantra that the privatization pushers always use... in healthcare, education, senior care, and on and on...all the while they are decimating and dismantling very good systems that just need certain problem areas addressed.

We chose the latter alternative and have never regretted it. The way that public system forces people to wait and wait and wait is criminal, wrote Martin.

If you don't have $900, the private system makes you wait and wait and wait, forever, Martin.

James Burns wrote: "You may intuitively believe that most people who are healthy most of their lives cost Medicare less, but that doesn't make it factually correct."

You say that everyone costs the system money at the end of their lives.

Well, doesn't it follow that if everyone costs the system say, $10,000 at the end of their lives, but the healthy people costs the system nothing or very little at the run-up to this point, that the healthy person will, on average, costs the system less?

WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? I'd love to know because I'm 61 and haven't had a cold since 1978 and am absolutely, unbelievably healthy and have always thought I'm doing the system a favour even if I do get a stroke when I'm 80 or so.

To James Burns:
There are essentially two kinds of disease. The first deals with microbial invaders. Bacteria, virus's... germs. the second is environmental. Toxins within our environments are around us all the time, but the body, with a good diet, is usually more than capable of dealing with them. There are certain environments that the body can't survive in. Commonsensically, we know which ones they are. Bad water, bad air, bad diet.

With the second kind of disease, the environmental kind, acidosis is most often the culprit or cause, even to passed on genetic weaknesses. What does alcoholism lead to? Acute and chronic forms of acidosis that create digestive cancers, gout and kidney diseases to name a few. What does excess coffee lead to? Acidosis causing Osteoporosis. What do high intakes of proteins do? Damage the liver and kidneys over time from... acidosis. Sugar? A build up of acids combined with germs to cause rotten teeth, acids that if left unbuffered by fibres over a chronic timeframe cause diabetes. All of them in large doses, cause an overall depletion of alkaline minerals as follows in most to least amounts: Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium and trace metals such as iron, copper, manganese as well as other traces. To complicate things, there are acidic minerals that we in balance and with a good diet that includes plenty of fruits and vegetables (anything that comes from a rooted living source).
Back in the day, when our mothers made suppers that weren't from a box, we had a buildup of alkaline minerals that would get us through our love affairs with adult likings... for a while: Alchohol, sugar, coffee, drugs, and processed foods. These acids gradually deplete our alkaline minerals until our bodies can no longer keep our slightly alkaline PH in balance. As subclinical deficiencies develop from a lack of alkaline minerals provided as a rule by vegetables and fruits, combined with strong acid intakes, Free radical damage occurs within the body from PH levels dropping below 7, creating free radicals. Early forms of heart disease, cancer, arterio sclerosis, anyerisms and strokes develop over the long term. Over the short, its hemmoroids, ulcers, viricose veins, fluid retention from Potassium/Sodium imbalances, the list goes on, and on, and on, to well over 80 diseases, and I shouldn't have to get into all of the stones caused by these same PH imbalances. Kidney stones, gall stones, calcium deposits everywhere in the body, like Arthritis in type O's etc.

Chemically, (a little treatise on Gr. 12 Chemistry) all atoms and molecules like to pair up their ions or electrons. When there is an odd number of ions, the atom or molecule robs one from its neighbor. This sets a chain reaction that occurs, usually leading to cellular degeneration on a sub atomic level. Its called Free radicals, and we've known about it since 1956. This same physicist that wasn't taken seriously until Nasa put him on the map with ozone depletion in the 80's , and the medical community, finally in the 90's (but only when we decided to profit from it with suppliments and dietary books). Its reminicent of what you are doing with me.

This same physicist understood the chemical equation to oxidization and realized that it was happening within our own bodies and was aging us prematurely, theorizing that our life potential (not expectancy) was around 120 years, barring free radical degeneration. These same people who live long lives, contribute to our world in ways that it sounds like you can't begin to understand.
Being alive isn't our cause to disease. Its ignorance. And its certainly been your own tone with me.
I can go on with fats and more details about which fats have the best and worst antioxidant characteristics, as well as antioxidants in general, but we library cards, internet, and time and have told you enough already.

Change your tone, (especially with your defence of greed) and I'll site sources.
BC Mary... I gave you an option.

bun,
it's okay if you stick your head back into the sand, it's perfectly acceptable in Canada.
The excuses I see here for this communist medical system are pitiful.
The left must be wondering how they can even open their mouth anymore. There is so much BS spewing out it's stupid.
This documentary was a straight forward look behind the scenes we are normally allowed to see. All should see it before commenting.
The next shoe to drop is the Global Warming con job.
It appears our boreal forest is responsible. We better start chopping it down right away.
But spin as you will, we have now been educated in the reality of Universal Health Care.It doesn't have to be discontinued, only fixed up to be more accountable.
A little story I heard about an emergency ward in a public hospital in Boston.
The pressure of a constant waiting room absolutely full of patients at all times.
A new head of ER was appointed. This Doctor had a unique solution.
When a patient arrived, they were told to go into the other room and disrobe.
This simple move reduced the amount of patients to 20% of what they had before.
Don't let these lefties scare anyone with the American boogeyman. If you believe these dolts you are truly a sucker.
This article is simply propaganda and damage control.
I am totally surprised that this documentary came to light for many on The Tyee.

Hey, Trueman:
You likely have a good diet. Thats 2/3rd's of it. You know, exercise, sleep, stress/happiness, emotional, mental, spiritual, there's more to it than physical environments and yet, its all physical. We just can't see its energy with the naked eye. Energy patterns with amputies where their limbs once were ought to tell us something. The varied Mhz of all forms of life should tip us off. We are highly complex beings and the science to it is even moreso, complex on many levels. The more I find out, the more I realize how little I know. The more aware I become, the more I realize its borderless infinity.

And yet... within the realization of our true individual and collective potential, is the sadness that comes from knowing that most of us won't fulfill it. I look around and see all of the unhappy people, all of the suffering and misery and needless negativity and it gets to me. It gets to me because I have needed answers that I've uncovered in my own searches that the world needs right now, I'm sitting on so much, Truman, but I've got a writers block. Its like... I can't explain it.

With the art of explanation, we go simple to complex, with most to least... this is the order to knowledge presented in its proper sequence, but, its like I've forgotten how to be simple. It's frustrating, Truman. I've learned so much here on this site alone, but its time to move on, because I think I've got what's called blogger's disease. You know, where you trick your mind into thinking that your opinion counts enough to make a difference and it just doesn't.

So much of what we try to learn is self driven. This isn't a bad thing... but I've learned so much more when the thirst for knowledge has come from learning to help others. To serve...

That's what's missing here from a good deal of people that participate on sites, especially the political and religious articles. People don't want to learn... they want to roast. Damage. Hurt. Distort the truth in a total act of self worship.
The best discussion I've had in the 3 weeks I've been here is on Rafe's articles because they've been based on the environment and it draws birds of the same feather. People who genuinely care. I recently watched all four parties participate in an environmental debate. It was excellent. Each candidate that was there deserves to be elected, I thought. They all cared (the audience didn't care much for Stephen Harpers stance on the Kyoto, though) Anyways, it's mostly been fun. You've drawn some of the best in me, Truman, these last few weeks and I luv ya for it. I've got a 10 day retreat coming up. The opposite of verbose. A quiet mind. I'll find my peace there. Until then, I'm taking a pause. Peace and Love.

Last parting words, Ron. Sarcastic Anarchism will only get you so far. You are close to the end now. Close to the truth. In loss, you will find gains. Remember it. I won't be back to remind you twice.

and how, pray tell, has the parallel private system fixed this?

Americans must be the healthiest people on earth

Natural Paths are trying and they are trying, some of them as non profit.

Change my tone, lol. Brain bud, you seem to have a bug up your ass about a relatively proximal cause of disease, specifically diet. And you're depending on a physicist for medical advice? Diet is a factor, but you seem to suggest that it is a panacea. It is not.

To give one illustration, there is growing evidence that certain infections cause, much later in life, certain chronic conditions and diseases. HPV and cervical cancer have a demonstrated link. Another, chronic Stomach ulcers, long thought to be a result of diet were found to be directly attributable to a species of bacterium, curable with antibiotics.

More importantly the real statistically solid evidence on good health does not support diet as the primary factor for any given population. Want to know what the most consistent indicator of good health is? Socioeconomic status. The higher your standard of living, the healthier you are on average. Does a higher standard of living mean you eat better? Probably. But it also means you likely lead a more comfortable, less stressful, less dangerous life, with higher a level of education, more opportunity for earlier medical intervention, etc. etc.

None the less brain, you still avoid the point, and distract from the issues of medical costs, and the threats to Medicare in general.

As for my tone, when you ditch your ready arrogance, I might be less inclined to be harsh in my critique of your comments.

I don't think anyone considers the Natural Path side of the medical system to be the big threat to Medicare. More power to 'em I say. Medicare can't fix every problem in society.

The problem is people going without medical treatment at all because as others have said, the waiting time in the private system is forever if you don't have the money.

By the way, to whoever said it was a year to get a cancer test. One person close to me got hers immediately. X-rays, followed by CT Scan folowed by some thing I can't spell but it starts with Bronc and involves a specialist scraping your lung. All within 3 weeks of her going to her family doctor.

Three quick comments. First, it is very difficult to improve a system if there are extremely strong forces hell bent on tearing it apart with the "it's not working" mantra-the reason for the dichotomy of public versus private is that this is the reality of the forces acting in this country.

Second: atomic, molecular and physiological discussions don't tell the story. Macro measures of health do and reasonably developed countries that have a socialized medical system, ours or other form, experience far better performance on these measures (life expectancy, infant mortality etc.)than those that do not and at a much lower cost as a % of GDP. In this area, Canada including BC absolutely shines in comparison to our southern neighbour.

Third: "the system is broken" We have a system which provides services on an as needed basis to the population (no, I am not forgetting about private service or que jumping for WCB, athletes etc.) but for the majority service is provided on an as needed basis without direct cost to the individual. Under this condition, there will always be a "shortage" as we do not have a rationing system other than triage. Make no mistake, putting a for fee system in place which this article is really about (private will be for fee sooner or later otherwise it will run into the same constraints as the current system) is imposing a rationing system based on ability to pay. I'll take our current system any day and work to put organizational systems in place to make it much more efficient. I also expect to always hear complaints.

In short, the "private solution" is a simple proposal addressing a complex issue, that of improving a health care system. Gutstein has simply reinforced and clarified some of the forces that would significantly benefit through the systematic dismantling of the system as soon as enough people are made to believe that it does not work. Isn't public
relations great!!

Excellent piece, James.

People are indeed being forced into the evolving private system, with extended wait periods in public healthcare-, no doubt.

You Erwinesque Wingnuts are surprised at this?
How could you be?

It's called late Neoconservative Capitalism, and the State healthcare policy regime they/ you have helped write and effect-, by way of serving Your Master's Voices in the corporate/ruling class healthcare system.

We are not so ingenuous as you would have us be. We know in whose interest these policies and changes in the healthcare system are being put in place, and at the behest of whom.

It's all part of the evolving class war out there in the economy and larger society.

Indeed, the erosion and weakening of the public healthcare system is playing right into the hands of those who see America's brand of "Profit as the Cure". Public funding of private medical care has increased exponentially in the past decade, along with corporate takeover of the infrastructure. Now profits derived from providing services in hospitals are being siphoned off, while wages for Canadian health care workers have been slashed. The Stephen Harpers and Ron Erwins would have you believe this is all great.
Maude Barlow's "Profit is Not the Cure" discusses this Americanization of healthcare in detail, and brings to light the experience of the UK in attempting to privatize their system under the leadership of that Reagan clone Maggie Thatcher. A disaster, plain and simple. In fact, most of the privatized medical services have since been reverted back into the public domain.
If the "private solution" is so great why is it that American healthcare (on a per capita basis) costs double what we as Canadians spend?

I say you're absolutely correct on that, bun. Also I'm singing from Truman's hymn book (what, man? you're 61?) on this. I too have stayed healthy on principle and felt good, thinking I was, like, protecting the Health Care system.

But too often, for routine medical checks or simple care, I'd be sent off for example, for routine blood tests, and the results would get lost, and the tests would have to be repeated (sometimes done 3 times).

Doctors have brought health costs into my life which I knew shouldn't have been there ... but only the doctors could order them or stop them. And they won't stop them because they fear being sued if they can't see themselves standing up in court able to say that they had done every, every, everything possible ... even 3 times over.

Hell (don't get me started ...) I've been Medi-vacced with 2 ambulances and 2 ambulance crews for a trip into Jubilee Hospital from a Gulf Island which I could easily have made by myself in my own car.

There's nothing much wrong with Canada's Health Care System if only the doctors valued it as highly as the Canadian people do.

What that rotten, lousy Medicare Schmedicare mockumentary told me was that the doctors are capable of better organization of services but that they're not pushing for it within the public system. They were against public Medicare, right from the start.

And then lynn quoted bun - and now I'm pasting it in here again in case anyone missed it. I might change "power and corruption" to "money". Otherwise, I'm with lynn: this is one of the most insightful things anyone has said here lately. Plenty of evidence available from The Council of Canadians if you don't but it.

Oh, and Brain? (I feel like Pinky here) Your treatise on human health as a set of chemical/solubility equilibria formulae is the most asinine and under-informed piece I have read in a lng time. Must be nice to see life in such simplistic terms. Human health is dynamic, ever changing, and rarely so easily defined. Free radicals, oxidixation?? Malarkey. PH balance? Hogwash. Whenever I hear your sort of dogma spewed I'm reminded of bible thumpers - all the answers served up nice and neat.

Or maybe "buy it", as opposed to "but it".

BC Mary, I love you especially because of your dressing down of the BORING Brain guy I presume it's a guy, but your claim that you kept yourself healthy in order not to drain resources from our Health Care system is a little rich.
I am so fascinated by the differences in our philosophy of life.
I would make the statement that I would have rather been given $25.00 per week for the past 40 years, which with the wonders of compound interest would mean I have hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank right now, because I have kept myself healthy, by accident probably,, is so different than the way you would frame it.
That's why I love The Tyee and all the posters ( except The Brain ) and the internet that is the last hope of free speech.

To James Burns:
Diet IS that important to our health. Prevention IS that important to the overall health of our citizens and the medicare system itself. How many times do I have to use the word PREVENTION for it to sink in that I'm addressing the problem! Lastly, mirobial invaders are usually (but not always) introduced and multiply after (not before) our physical bodies environments (the blood and tissues) become unhealthy over accute and chronic timelines. The one example I could think of that would counter this usuality, would be an airborne pandemic.

To BC Mary: Excellent points.

To everyone else: There are a growing number of doctors within the public system itself who want to become private to make more money. The public health care system is being eroded from the inside out. Its true. Its being weakened from greed and the consumption agenda set by corporations, as Coyote has pointed out, BY A PRIVATE SECTOR AGENDA. But for anyone who would remotely believe that I want to do away with public healthcare, well, its just not true. I want like the rest of those who are concerned with equality and public fairness overall, to heal it!

Think for a moment. When public health won't cover teeth, or eyes or diet or prevention, where does that leave the public? There are two kinds of private here. The private sector that wants to make a lot of money off of both systems, and the private health care system that has originated because the public health care system doesn't want to cover complete care.

And finally, you all seem to think your lives would be better off without my input. Too negative, too wordy. What have I been saying all along. This is an unhealthy country we live in with regards to the environment, health care, employment, politics and journalism coverage itself. Am I supposed to be happy about this? Am I supposed to do handstands and brag up the systems, groups and individuals that are failing us?

The stats tell it all, and if we have neither the time or the hearts to check it out for ourselves, then just open your eyes and do a count. One third of us our OBESE. Another third are over weight. A final third are trying to be healthy, but the crap in the grocery stores, the arifical foods and flavoring and preseravtives, and dangerous packaging and pesticides and chemicals... 90% of it, I would no longer touch because of what I've had to learn with my own research. And I haven't even remotely begun to address mental and emotional health. If James Burns thinks rich people are healthier in all respects, he can think again.

Tommymore and those like him reinforce the problems we face today. We simply don't know the dangers. Its reminds me of Republican congressmen who to this day, still blame global warming on natural phenomenom. It truly is time for me to spend my energies elsewhere. Its wasted here.

Actually there are wait times in the American system as well. It is the big 'profit makers' (heart surgery for instance) that you can get anytime, anyplace.

It's comforting to know that not a single person referred to my comments on alternatives to the American and Canadian approach to health care delivery. If the nurses union ran private clinics with public funding you would see a change in service and attitude. It's the perfect alliance between Capital and Labour with the market mechanism as the nucleus.
What led Britain's Labour Party to push for private-sector management models? Why does the head of Sweden's Nurses Union support private clinics? Britain's health minister, Alan Milburn, who is generally considered from the far left of the political spectrum, stated that, "this is the right time to acknowledge the one great truth that we all know in our hearts: That a service employing one million people in thousands of hospitals and health centres . . . can't be run from Whitehall."
Sweden's National Union of Nurses chairperson, Eval Fernvall, agrees and states that, "in societies today the old [health care] model no longer works. Now there is a need for flexibility, entrepreneurship and new channels to let loose the complexity of demand and supply held back for decades."

bpither1, The problem of course is we are familiar with both the Cdn and US models. Many of us have spent time in the US, have family and friends there. How many of us know in depth, not just a one-sided Michael Campbell column, about the Finnish system?

As any Cdn lefty will tell you, the Labour Party of Tony Blair is not left-wing. Only right-wing columnists keep using these guys as examples by building up their left-wing credentials.

It isn't run from Ottawa either. The BC system is run from Victoria, all the feds provide is the overall goals and some of the money. Considering BC is only about 4 million people and Britain has a population twice that of Canada's I don't think decentralizing further is a money maker.

But its an isolated statement. What is exactly the problems of Swedish health care? What are the plans they are putting forward? What changes will it actually mean on the ground? Without all the other knowledge of foreign systems the back and forth selective quoting of individuals could go on forever.

Frank, Although our medical system may be run from Victoria, not Ottawa, you are forgetting we must adhere to The Canadian Health Act, which is Federal edict. This is a problem when trying to offer flexible solutions to problems. We are trying to work with a straight jacket on.
Now you could opt out of the act, but Federal funding would cease.
I'd love to see Alberta to tell the feds to stuff it, as they are the only Province that could afford it.
The Conservatives have said nothing about repealing this act, so I guess nothing is going to change anytime soon, unfortunately.

Ron, I didn't forget that at all but the Canada Health Plan doesn't say where you have to locate a hospital or an MRI machine. Its simply an overall framework. It doesn't try to micro-manage the system at all, that is Victoria's job. Therefore its not like the quote about running the entire NHS from Whitehall.

There is nothing a pure private system can do that a pure public system can't do, and vice versa. The overall goal of Medicare though is that every Canadian has an equal right to those health care resources. Its not a strait-jacket to say every Cdn has that right. No more than having a publically funded and run military is a strait-jacket on our defence needs.

Define what you mean by flexible. What flexible solutions are required that can't be offered under the public umbrella?

I don't believe most Cons are any more against Medicare than the Paul Martin Liberals. No party will dismantle it unless there's public will and that's why the CBC program was created. To attack that public faith in the system.

Frank, by flexibility I am talking about the monopoly that Public Sector Unions have on the system.
The most vocal opposition to any privatization is this group, because there is no guarantee that the employees would be members of a union.

That's nothing to do with health care, that's just an ideological disagreement with unions. If they're again privatization, so what? Private has never proved it can produce better health care than public.

What actual flexibility is required to deliver better health care?

Frank, probably none, did you see this production on CBC. It's already happening, that's the point of the program. You gotta see it.

Well fine we don't have to speak about either Norway or Denmark where I lived for 6 years and used the medical system to my benefit.Whether it's Ottawa, Victoria or Whitehall the essential truth is that in some cases bureaucrats make a mess of an allocation of resources. We are flexible in case of another government run body - ICBC - where you can buy their choice of policy through a private agency or a non profit one such as BCAA for the same price. If you get into an accident you don't drive your car a state run garage to get it fixed. It's privately repaired and ICBC foots most of the bill. We don't seem to complain much about that...mostly...and ICBC is doing very well, despite the complaints...try living in Ontario to experience the alternative.
Alright I digress but I'm trying to make a point about extendingthe publically funded privately run system we already have without the fearmongering. Doctors are private and negotiate their fee schedule with the BC government. Blood tests are conducted in a private clinic, paid for by the government. Lions Gate Hospital contracts their cataract surgery to a private clinic (Northmount Eye Centre in North Vancouver) and reduced their waiting list by 30% in the first year (1999-2000)My suggestion to anyone is to STUDY how other countries have approached this topic and then come back to this board

Unions?

The BCMA is not a uniion, it just acts like one and it is arguably the most powerful "labour" group.
Interesting to look at the US where HMO's operate as an oligopoly for the most part and choice has disappeared for those who are insured.

Why look at the US? I'm with "Brain" on this and am in favour of looking at and critically evaluating all kinds of ideas that may improve the overall quality and efficiency of the current system (which I don't think is nearly as bad as private sector proponents claim), I just don't think that it is possible to truly evaluate in an environment where I believe there are powerful pressure groups who would like to see the system scrapped in favour of American style health care which would be profitable for them.
Therefore I think to say that private "participation" (note that in general private can take a range of forms including a variety of not for profit or charitable structures)would be anything other than private for profit amounts to being blind.

Brain, stick around eh. I'm trying to learn stuff in this world and a lot of real gems pop up in your posts.

Maybe try to use a few more paragraph breaks, if you can.

I didn't see the CBC program. But its not like it was the first. I believe CTV's W-5 started attacking Cdn health care 20 years ago.

Anyway, I don't argue its already happening. That's why I always vehemently disagree with the Mikey Campbells who compares it to North Korea. Doctors are all private businesses, lots of labs are, there's private facilities, all the drug companies are private etc. Nobody can complain there isn't a lot of private side already within the system.

Let's assume the private side is around 30%+, its a number put out there quite a bit. Let's also assume that its growing. In the mid-90s we had huge cutbacks in most provinces because of the Paul Martin's Liberal budget, something that wasn't mentioned in their little red book.

I think we can safely assume from those cutbacks that the public side was squeezed. Things did worsen in terms of waiting lists and other outcomes. Non-doctors in the system did take a lot of 0% wage increases and yet there were also a lot of lost jobs so that those remaining found their areas of responsibility expanded. Lots of nurses left the country and didn't come back when Martin and the provinces reached their deal last year. The system has not recovered from mthe Martin cuts. Maybe it hasn't been enough time.

I don't think left or right would argue with that summary.

But how is a further erosion of the system going to help? If the growing private side has not helped so far will another 10 or 20% do it? If 55% of the system is private would that fix the problems? 75%? 95%? Why can't anyone point to examples of how increasing private side has helped the overall system? Why isn't there a flood of people lined up at the clinic on Cambie? You'd think if it was so great that everyone would rush there instead of sitting on long waiting lists.

I just think calls for privatization and further erosion of the public system under the Liberals makes no sense without concrete examples of why its a good thing.

There are no promises and yet a lot of people depend on there being a health care system.

But I didn't live there for 6 years and have no idea what they do. If you want to tell us about it I'm all ears.

As do private companies. That's why so many go bankrupt or are bought out and taken apart. Often it might even be the same people as the article points out. People do move back and forth between private and public and an ex-bureaucrat doesn't become a genius just because he's now working on the private side.

On ICBC, there is no Medicare-practice around here. Its all doctors with their own private clinics. I actually have less choice than I do with car insurance where I can purchase directly from ICBC. In the case of hospitals there is choice. Public hospitals or stuff like Brian Day's clinic. (And why do all of these private-side booster doctors have that weird accent I can never place?)

As I said to Ron, what percentage of the overall system has to be private before everyone is happy? 75% private? Everything except one hosptial per large city?

To Frank:
You are so right on everything you've said. I could add to your summary that Paul Martin inherited 40 billion dollar deficits and 11% unemployment forcing all of those cuts and until recently, the Feds have had money again, due to 40 billion in overal Federal debt reduction over 8 surplus's, refinancing with lower interest rates on pre-existing loans, growing GDP, and, perhaps, most of all, a large increase in energy royalties. The money is back, but for how long?
The PC's get in, promise to restore fiscal imbalance estimating everything on current budgets with low employment, peaking commodity values, and growing GDP... what happens with a US recession? We won't feel it with trade 85% North south? We can expect federal deficits, especially if we get involved with american wars, and this means the same social cuts we're just climbing ourselves out of.

I've appreciated your comments Frank, and Trueman, thanks. And my writers block is gone. I wrote a beautiful piece this morning on the 12 questions that need to be asked, you remember that gem?

Getting back to the system... the greatest obstacles to our system, is the overall health of Canadians who use the system itself and until we start dealing with health in terms of prevention, education and cleaner environments, our system will continue to be overburdened, regardless of how much extra money is coming in.

The only suggestions I've found in platforms addressing heathcare spending on prevention in congunction with education and envirionmental concerns, have come from the Greens. Its barely on the radar and there's no secret as to why. Corporate will. There's no money in eating and drinking wisely, or in screening hazardous drugs and processed foods and drinks. There's certainly no money in prevention and this says it all.

As for earlier posts on acidosis and PH, I completed exhaustive research on the subject a year ago, eating and breathing everything I could find concerning dietary treatment with prevention and cure for 3 months straight. My life consisted of workouts and research and in my endevours, I found the answers to both in relation to all diseases. It's all likely to be published this fall with Randomhouse and that's all I can say on it for now, other than to eat your fruits and vegetables, start sprouting, and avoid chemically treated foods as much as possible. The tech talk is coming, including a dietary cure for cancer that will both shame and heal medicare in general, if taken seriously. If anyone is interested in what it is, they'll have to take me to another chat site.

Thank you Donald Gutstein for writing the article. Hadn't seen the "documentary" but am not surprised to see CBC and The Knowledge Network supporting this propaganda.

Carol Taylor, Gordon Campbell's "star" cabinet member, was chair of the CBC Board when CBC Radio was caught fabricating a newscast item that faked a response by George W. Bush to a British reporter's question about the war in Iraq, making Bush sound much more masterful and articulate than he actually was. A complaint to the CRTC forced the CBC to admit to the falsehood they broadcast, BUT they never had to broadcast any correction or apology nor did the CBC personnel who faked the newscast item suffer any penalty.

So... I'm not surprised that the powerful people who run BC and the CBC are continuing to try to pull the wool over the public's eyes every chance they get, in their zeal to turn a profit from their allegiance to American corporate rule. Campbell loves to tout how he wants BC to prosper for his kids. Funny that nobody calls him on it but his kids live and work in New York's financial industry, which helps to carve up and serve BC's assets to the Americans. Mr. Gutstein, please keep up the good work. We need you.

Insightful post, Sunny.

Perhaps, it's because we've head it all before,
bpither1. The truth is we won't be like Europe and the socialist countries Sweden and Norway, because we dolive right next door. Just like we only get two weeks vacation compared to the six Europe and Australia (and probably New Zealand before the neo-cons bled that country dry and made productivity the lowest among industrialized nations - after all if you make people miserable and steal their capital which is their labour, they're not going to give an extra ounce to those who are oppressing them)Just like we have a far less generous health care system to begin with, we will have exactly the US system. And, if you've been paying attention to what is happening over there, physicians are leaving because of malpractice insurance rates and the HMO constant interference in their practice and harassment of what procedures are deemed necessary. And, insurance has slipped so much that insured people are going bankrupt when ill becauuse of increasing copays and denied services. But, oh yes, B and company pushed through the bankrupcy bill which made it impossible for people to have a second chance while giving corporations every incentive to be sociopathic and dishonest.

Re the CBC...

The neo-cons want to destroy it and they're doing a pretty good job. Google and see what Bushes friend did to NPR. He's in a little trouble though, isn't he?

Disgusting sociopaths.

Heard...

And, service and attitude?

Yeah, and we're the customers.
The whole bloody world is a customer.

I'm fed up with this stupid, ugly cult.

And, I'm tired of Drs who come from SA and are very comfortable with a huge underclass who get nothing never mind good medical care. working so tirelessly to destroy my country. Some gratitude.

I didn't grow up this way. This isn't my country's way.

...tired (very gd fed up actually) of Drs who come from SA and are very comfortable with a huge underclass - who got nothing never mind good medical care - working so tirelessly to destroy my country.

To them I would say, wait til the cash cow your getting right now from the taxpayer ends and you have to start dealing with the HMOs my friends. You'll wish you had fought for more operating room time and a properly funded public system where you were considered 'God', not a thief as you'll be treated by the insurance industry. But, oh wait, it wouldn't surprise me if, surprise, surprise, there is stock already involved.

Thank goodness for the RCMP because I'm quite sure they already know and have a handle on what is happening in this province and country.

And, if you haven't stock in the insurance industry you'll be shocked at how much less you earn. Canada hasn't the population to create the wealthy physician of Park Avenue, my friend. No, you'll be lucky to earn 80 thousand a year. Probably will earn about 60

Bide my words. For your own prosperity, you better hope the public health care system is preserved and restored.

In the US insurance pays for psychologists and any number of things MSP does't. Of course, lately, they are denying more and more services with higher and higher co-pays.

You don't think they'll offer anything we're not accustomed to, do you? Our system will end up even less than the US system if they get their way.

I presented hard evidence how privately delivered yet publically funded health care is an alternative and successful part of our social system. Instead of showing where I am wrong in the specific examples mentioned I read a lot of verbiage which is just distracting. If Workers Compensation uses private care to save this government body the expense of providing funds to an injured worker waiting for an operation what is wrong with that? No one seems to be complaining about that! It is cost effective and if youwere in pain you would be thankful for this, or, cataract eye surgery provided in a "timely fashion" by a private clinic in North Vancouver without personal cost. No amount of money thrown at the system will change it unless we embrace creative solutions. We have been dragging our heels for years and government makes promises and creates commissions (Romanov and the Kirby Commissions)to "study" the problem while the centre continues falling apart.

Here's what Maude Barlow has to say:

"Profit is not the cure for medicare. We can afford to maintain and even strengthen our health care system if we eliminate the current for-profit components that are causing some costs to spiral, such as patented drugs, fee-for-service, and overpaid administrators, and instead, turn to a primary care, community-based, fully-public model run more equitably and more efficiently. Further, the right of Canadians is the right of every human being on the planet; Canada must recommit to its former position and work with other governments and the United Nations to see that universal, public health care is provided to the world."

Living next door to a country like the US doesn't mean we will turn into the Bogeyman down South. This is just another distracting and unrelated argument which does nothing to address my points. Just verbiage! As for "Socialist" Scandinavia that's a joke! Just food for journalists who like to apply terms that us mere mortals can understand when they haven't a clue how that system works. You would be surprised to know that Sweden has a school voucher system, no government car insurance and an employment insurance system run by the largest Union Organization in the country. You would be surprised to know that their tax system has one of the lowest Marginal Effective Tax Rates (METR)in the industrial world. Don't mix that up with taxes on personal income or consumption. METR is the tax a firm pays on investment and machinery. Canada is second highest, after China (2005 figures)! Does this make us Socialist? This is not a distraction from the main topic. I'm merely pointing out that our overall general approach to problem solving is too limited by our well honed and structured world view based on limited knowledge and fearmongering. Get out of the box and study the solutions in other countries before jumping off the wagon with comments on geography. Give me a creative solution on wait lists in Canada without pointing to the US as the solution or our favorite bugbear.

Yuu have the solution. Tommy Moore posted it. Fund public medicine. Eliminate private. Don't let Campbell etal divert health care dollars to 'projects such as building a private hospital with our health care dollars. Or, giving it to his developer friends through the construction of building when we have a huge empty tower already there! Or shutting the cheaper to run hospital operating rooms and funneling money to a private clinic.

Jail those politicians who abuse the public trust.

Scandanavia has traditionally had very generous socialistic programs and a more socialistic structure than we do. I'm sure you guys have eroded their countries too and they aren't what they once were. In fact I'm going to go google about it.

OF course, we'll become just like the US. Their influence is too large. No bugabo, just plain common sense.

Return the CAP system of federal delivery of funding. Rather than Martin's first action to destroy Canada's social safety net years ago.

Well very great discussion.I lived and worked in the US. As a nurse down south, I witnessed how people lost their lives because there was no money. How peole went bankrupt, total destruction of livelihood and families. Is this what we want here?
In the corner of Davis and Burrard there is a private clinic. I was aorking for the construction company that demolished the old ITALIAN CONSULATE consulate on the 7th floor. The private management company from Idaho that came and set the clinic up, is part of a campaign promoting privatization of our health care system. There is a board of directors comprised of doctors from the St Paul's hospital, the company that manage the building also is part of the deal. The manager of said company is also an investor. Nurses from St Paul left the public sector to work in the clinic, some full time and some part time.
So I advocate that:
1 - Anyone that are educated on the Canadian school system that has provided more access to post secondary school than the US, has to pay back their full school cost once they go private or move to live and work in the US.This include any discipline. I strong believe that we need to change the fixation with taking from the public purse without giving something back.
2 - This will not apply to people that work in the system for a minimum of 5 years.
3 - People will be remunerated the same way they are right now. Fair competitive salaries.
4 - The professionals live and work in the communities that support their education and financial independency. These way many communities' needs will be addressed. The country will be served by a great number of young enthusiastic people. Citizenship wil be a reality and everyone will benefit. Just like in Germany, where people can defer their military service to work in the community.
6 - The other group of people that should not be allowed to work as consultants are universities professors. Right now they are double deeping and the students and research are suffering. Tenure uni profs. have their graduate students doing lots of work. Then they take advantage of the students ideas and research and write papers with the students work, as 2nd or first authors...happens all the time and is difficult to take them to court and win.
7 - What we are missing in this country is a sense of commitment to community. Our leaders are complascent self serving sell outs. Greed is the revived god.

8 - People cannot work in the public and private health care sector at the same time.

9- School cafeterias provide foods to students from farms around our cities, wherw there is no need to drive the produces from miles and miles away. After peak oil, we have to come up with a different way to organize our living and our resource sharing.

Those that are for private health just remeber your choices when you need the system and you can no longer afford to pay for your private health care.

I also want to comment how ignorant some of you are about alternative health choices and how diet is about 85% of the health problems we face.

bpither1 you're confusing private and public business. Physicians (well their provicial representatives) negotiate with provincial governments on setting billing for all the various proceedures physicians perform. The prices are not controlled by fiat by the government, although the two regularly disagree and try to get a better deal.

Two tier health care is about physicians and business people getting wealthy people to pay various fees or a membership for better care while still billing the government for all the medical services they provide to those wealthy patients.

There are no restrictions against physicians operating as private businesses, in fact that is exactly what most physicians are. The restrictions currently are that physicians are not supposed to add surcharges or require membership fees of patients in order to provide them care if they are going to be charging Medicare for the services they provide. The issue isn't really private vs. public. The issue is doctors and their business investors getting wealthy people to pay extra for better care while the doctors and their investors suck on the public tit.

It is a money grab by physicians. It is far easier to squeeze money out of individuals, especially if they are sick and desperately need treatment, than it is to negotiate with their publically elected representatives. The government drives a hard bargain. At the same time, physicians don't want to give up the public cash cow in Medicare, because even most wealthy patients can't afford the full costs of health care. Two tier care is the answer. It keeps the taps of public money flowing, while letting doctors make more money on rich people willing to pay for jumping the queue, or additional frills.

Some governments are enticed by two tier, because they think it will save money, or at least stave off the need to raise more money to pay for increasingly complex and expensive new medical proceedures.

Finally I take issue with the idea that health care is in crisis. While an argument can be made that rural areas are underserved, most cities are not. Moreover, the best way to improve health care is to spend more money on it by following the recommendations of the Romanow report. Spending that money through a publically (government) managed system, will be far less expensive for all Canadians than having to be left negotiating individually for care with physicians and the health insurance plans that spring up to top-up Medicare.

The US situation clearly shows that a largely private health care system is terribly inefficient.

And regulate industry so they go to jail if they let toxins into the air and water and food that kill people. Don't forgive them a 400,000 plus fine! Go after the factory farms poisoning our water and feeding animals to vegitarian animals. Or genetically alter food without safeguards and protections. I wouldn't eat any corn if I were you. You know it's causing tumors in rats. Cancer cases will drop radically!

Very good wellherewegoagain. Whether or not CareChoices at Burrard and Davie is sucking resources out of the public system OR reducing the wait list is the question which comes to my mind. At the same time your experience in the US only confirms that this is not the model we should emulate, if indeed CareChoices is promoting just that. As a percentage of GDP health costs are the highest in the OECD and plenty of people go bankrupt because of catastrophic illness and a usurious private insurance system which will find all kinds of ways to not fully cover your condition. However,a WHO study shows that our system ranks 30th in terms of value for money - health outcomes for every dollar invested - although the methodology is in disupte...Redrivergirl - I'm glad you will look into how Sweden has approached their Health Care dilemma. After 6 years in Scandinavia I was greatly impressed by how every Nordic country collaboratively evaluate a problem without the ideological underpinnings. If the unions in Canada participated in the provision of health care, or, if they sat on the board of a privately run company (not a shareholder controlled one but a body which is strictly regulated by government) I think you would see a very different social climate embracing more creative solutions. At time same time because there is a high level of income support which Nordic taxpayers are prepared to pay for, unlike the miserly welfare system in this country, you experience less fear of finding solutions that work. Arbitrarily rolling back wages by 15% for workers in the Health Care sector and the refusal of local health authorities (something I witnessed at UBC Health Sciences) to listen to what Nurses have to say (actually the person in question from Vancouver Coastal refused to acknowledge that she received a memo to this effect although I saw it) is NOT the way to find common ground. It's horrible for someone like myself to see this lack of cooperation after experiencing the opposite in Scandinavia!

The Canadian public widely supported the results of The Romanov Commission.

It was the neo-con media (and those whose interests they represent) that strongly opposed it, attacking it in their editorials with a determination to denigrate, stall and negate the findings.

Within the neo-con media they are refusing to represent the overwhelming view of the majority of Canadians...that is, our strongly held belief in a universal public health care system.

The privatization agenda continues to darkly bloom through the powerful allure of advertising... of the art of the lie - of repeating a message often enough to make it appear to be true...to convince us, ultimately, that their private agenda is our public desire.

Well I see everyone wants to continue to throw money into a sink hole.
By what I read above I see that the solution, if it was applied to say, transportation, would mean that we Canadians desreve a God given right for freedom of movement.
So we issue every single Canadian with a Chevy made in Ontario.
This is all you will ever drive, never will you be able to experience the thrill of motoring down the Malahat in your brand new or perhaps reconditioned BMW.
It's not that you are entirely denied this luxury, because you won't be forbidden to go to another country and do just that.
Imagine if we decided it was a God given right to eat. So the govt. took over the distribution of our food supply. Imagine the govt. forecasting how many pounds of Pepperoni to have delivered to Nanaimo in June/06 ?
You know you are out to lunch if you can truly say the govt. should have any influence on the running of out health care system.
Forget it, I am not buying this communist dream.

James Burns - Read my comment again on the doctors - they are private and they (or their representatives which is more correct but I think this is implicit in my comment)negotiate with the government (I never implied government fiat either)for their fee schedule on services. I didn't mix anything up. As for Romanow didn't he close 50+ unprofitable community health clinics in Saskatchewan in the early nineties leading to long waiting lists to balance the budget? Governments of both the Conservatives and the NDP formerly built clinics whether they were profitable or not to win political support in a riding. Which brings to mind how much politics dictates policy anywhere at any time in this country, something we are witnessing today during the federal election. They are all promising the earth and they are all lying through their teeth - or is this just "wriggle room" provisional integrity or conditional truth telling in this post modernist era of ours?

Ron Irwin - your comments are pointless and only underpin the ideological nature of this discussion on health care without adding any concrete solutions.

You did? Lion's Gate is the path? Just what exactly are these creative solutions? Because from what I've heard they all sound like privatization to me. Or is that the limit of creativity available?

Those were Grant Devine's baby, not Romanow's and not Blakeneys'. He built them to swing the farm vote even though a hospital in Outlook might have had only one patient somedays. Yes, Romanow shut them down. Would have been great to have them. Save some people a drive to Saskatoon, Regina, North Battleford etc but with a population of just under a million its not like every community the size of Spuzzum can have its own hospital.

And it did not lead to long waiting lists. There would have had to have been large numbers of people actually living in places like Outlook for this to have happened. The waiting lists occurred because of low commodity prices for Sask products and Martin's cuts to the provincial transfers.

I think you need a very different social climate to even dream this. The day the unions are invited to the table in BC by the Campbell gov't and its business partners for anything different than a take-it-or-leave-it I will prepare myself for the apocalypse.

And how is it that the promises of the private providers don't fall under this umbrella? If I understand your logic we can take nurses and doctors and infrastructure out of the public system and put it into the private system and it will relieve stress on the public system? Or will the private system get its people from a space colony?

Thanks brain.

Look bpither, I don't read Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian or Dane. Why not just tell us how the system there works? Do they have the same demographics? Does their child care and generous benefit system contribute to overall health? Do they spend less money because their doctors don't all run to Britain for more money if they don't get what they want? Does geography, they are small, play a part in administration costs being lower? Are admin costs lower?

There are lots of questions before jumping behind another country's solution. Like if the problems are even the same.

Bravo! Great idea, rrg...it's simple, quick and efficient... and well, it's just darn brilliant. :-)

bepither1,
you know I have got to the heart of the matter and you simply don't agree. Too bad, the medical system is the same as any other SYSTEM.
Accountability drives success. There is little of this in the way we are doing things.
So I say that a solution is to turn as much of the responsibility away from the Government to the private sector.
Maybe the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund can bank some of these profitable ventures.
Doctors are professional tradesmen who should be allowed to charge as much as a plumber in Manhattan.

Well, Lynn, we could horse whip them down main street, Lynn. But, maybe we've evolved more than that. Then again...

oops, time to go to bed.

Excellent points, Frank.

They have done some privatizing. It's no secret that the attack we are under is also happening to every civil society right now, including the US. B's speech today was incredible.

Erwin provision of health care is fundamentally different from producing a product like a car.

Health insurance companies profit the most by providing the least amount of care for the most amount of money, and this is especially true because the costs of care are back loaded. The greatest cost comes near death, and since private insurers will be losing a customer anyway, it is in their interest to cover as little of their medical expenses as possible when they really need it, or drop them as soon as they can once they start to suffer from ill health. You can't switch insurers once you realize their service sucks when you get sick, because now to get that BMW policy you'll have to pay Rolls Royce prices if they're even willing to cover you at all. Hell you might not be able to get coverage, so you'll have design your own car and buy your own factory to make it.

Your solutions are laughably simplistic and you ignore reality in favour of ideological dogma. The United States clearly demonstrates that Canada's model of Medicare is vastly superior. If we want "BMW" coverage, then the best way to get it is for everyone to put more money into Medicare, because we will get that "BMW" service at a rate vastly cheaper than a private system could ever hope to realize.

Medicare is cheaper, more efficient, more effective, fairer, less complicated for patients, provides better service per dollar, and yes it is a program managed for the public by the government. I guess it should be little wonder you hate it so. Its success over a doctrinare capitalist model must really get under your ideological skin.

To Bpither1: I (speaking for myself) appreciate your input, I really do, but you put your foot in your mouth with Romanow. He inherited a Grant Divine regime that ran up the Sask. deficit to 14 billion from zero, in 10 years (two elections) over a Mulroney era (no blame on less transfers, here). When farmers finally woke up to his government, the damage was done. 250,000 Sask. residents left over the his last 5 years and the wake of financial ruin in Sask, leading to a further financial tax drain.

14 Sask. MLA's faced criminal charges and the majority of them went to jail, one of them below ground with a bullet in his head. And if you think this bunch was corrupt (trust me, it overshadows Montgomery), just wait. You've seen nothing yet with the future to come in relation to provincial budgetary audit failures over healthcare, and Roy Romanow is playing a tremendous role in seeing these changes come about from province to province across this country.

I was a little harsh on Donald Gutstein in my first post because I believed he missed most to least in terms of importance, but he deserves major credit for naming names. Most journalists haven't got the guts to do it. Is this Liberal government corrupt? Just look at the conflicts of interest in who they help and who they don't, especially in terms of private healthcare. Its obvious! To all of the voters in the next provincial election, start voting in enough greens to put in a minority NDP, and it might be enough.

We rely on Doctors and government to set the standards concerning health care in this country. We have to start realizing that we only know for the most part what we are being told. Are doctors intitutionalized? You can bet your life on it. Is this a good thing? Its good to have standards... its bad to have standards set by HMO's right from the very top, with university professors, who are dictating protocol with everything!

Wellherewegoagain has one of the best posts here when she commented on just how much power an influence university professors have in our schools and our systems in general. Its well worth a second read. TO ALL AMBITIOUS JOURNALISTS WHO WANT TO MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE IN THIS COUNTRY. Look for scandal and corruption within the professors of our medical institutions. Look for the double dippers and intelligence thieves. They are there, they are real, and they are doing everything they can to make money off of our naivity and trust. They are costing this nation untold billions.

One last thing, HEREWEGO, diet is about 55 to 70% of it, depending on where you live. The air we breathe the water we drink, everything else we topically absorb including chemicals, light, water,etc. contributes to the rest and you know the rest. A weak body becomes a host to microbial invaders. Its natures way. As for anyone who would bash my earlier posts on prevention as being too vague, complex or false, don't accuse it. PROVE IT. Double dare yah!!

I'm glad to finally see some quality posts. Keep it up!

Yes, I agree. We taxpayers heavily fund universities, and I believe we should, that perhaps even make the first two years free to everyone who makes the grades. However, I do not want to fund education of doctors for the U.S. market, or to fund doctors who then go into very lucrative cosmetic surgery practices, something which has nothing to do with healthcare, but which uses its resources.

With the so-called shortage of doctors the Medical Associations (BCMA, CMA, etc.) are always crying about, has anyone noticed the explosion of cosmetic surgery doctors? Can't miss 'em. The physician section in the phone directory is full of them, as are newspaper and media ads, not to mention all the free publicity they get with journalistic "articles" in newspapers and magazines. Why are we taxpayers spending so much to subsidize the education of cosmetic surgeons, most of whom do only cosmetic surgery, nothing to do with medical need???

Also, these people are clogging up the limited seats in medical schools across the country. Why are they allowed to be there? They're not part healthcare. Ask your local politicians to explain their positions on this please.

Thanks to all those contibutors to this discussion who are unwilling to be cowed and silenced by the bullying friends of corporate wealth.

James Burns, you calling my concerns about health care as being ideological is like the pot calling the kettle black. Everything is ideological isn't it ?
How can it be that my ideas are ideological and why shouldn't that be ? To dismiss my views as laughably simplistic to me is a cop out. Your idea of universality funded as required by the state are simplistic.
Sorry, I am sticking to my usual call for CHOICE, a battle that I cannot believe is so hard to fight in this country as Canadians seem to be sheep being led to slaughter with no will to fight.
So my concrete solution is to maintain the universal health care system we have and also adhere to the Supreme Court that ordered us to allow for private insurance as well.
It's the Charter stupid. ( Oh how I like turning that phrase around and throwing it back into the face of liberals ).

I used to work in a phsio clinic and the reality of health care insurance in the US became apparent to me when I spoke with the patient's mother. Sure they had insurance but the deductible is $10,000. Yes, the amount the patient had to pay before the insurance company would pay for anything was $10,000. Why are insurance companies and banks and credit card companies pushing so hard to get more "choice" into Canada on healthcare, because they can raise those deductibles. They start slow and low. Hey, you would pay $900 to get your loved one's knee replaced right? That's choice. But don't be fooled in a few years all those people who love the idea of private health and "choice" are going to paying through the nose in deductibles. And when Canadians start losing their homes and family members because they couldn't pay, what will our society look like then?

This whole idea that the public system is unsustainable is a marketing ploy to sell us on something we don't want. Where there is a will there is a way. Canadians have the will but the Liberals and Conservatives don't.

AS for the charter ruling, it did not say that Canadians have the right to private insurance. It ruled that Canadians have the right to timely care. A public system can provide that if only the polititicians in our governments and business manager's that are running our hospitals would use the systems and programs available to them.

Well Ron,

If you like to throw things back in the face of others.....

How do your fellow xtian fundamentalists feel when you support a woman's right to choose abortion? Or is this "call for CHOICE" only when the choice is one that's convenient for you.

I suspect the latter and that you are a hypocrite. But at least you can live with yourself while motoring down the Malahat in your new or reconditioned BMW. Personally I think that the Hope-Princeton is a better drive for the BMW.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337253.ece

Here you go. In Europe GM foods aren't legal. Here, because we are right next door can't even find out what foods are newly GM.

This is a huge scandal and mass murder we can thank our politicians for. Lobbying now is nothing more than bribes. Corruption in a way that I never thought I'd see in my county.

No GM foods and strict pollution regulation would save more in health costs than imaginable.

And, not a whisper about GM foods in our major media outlets. Canadians have been so betrayed.

Well yes Brain I'm fully aware of Grant Devine's folly. I alluded to the NDP and the 52 closed hospitals because I remember see a W5 documentary on the Devine era and Romanow's surgical cut and elimination of this rural political football which they insisted both parties exploited in the past. A little closer to home - it was under the BC NDP we saw a doubling of private clinics and in 1999 it was the first government to use private clinics for public surgeries. Again when any party is off the campaign trail and in government they will find a politically expedient solution to an acute problem and bundle it up in euphemism. Romanow didn't call the closure of rural hospitals as such but used the word Conversion which is almost as risible as Correction if I lose value in real estate, or Defense when the Americans attacked Iraq. And yes if you want to call the Lion's Gate "experiment" - because it is provisional and subject to contract renewal if the fiscal and surgical results are unsatisfactory - "privatization" as if it were a swear word than fine. It works and as a brave Chinese Communist put it "Who cares what colour the cat is, as long as it catches the mice." My point all along has been to review the medicare crisis from a non ideological perspective and look around at the world and learn from other countries beyond the US. One doesn't need to understand the Nordic languages to learn from their experience Frank. All you have to do is google around and you will find lots of information in English. You will find analysis on cost reductions, on administrative changes etc. I offer an idea practised in Sweden where publically funded and privately delivered health care is administered by the Nurses Union and if you want to explore this idea further then go for it. I would say their problems are similar to ours in using their resources to the best of their abilities to quickly adapt new medical technologies, provide a democratic environment for patient and workers and to find the ways and means of providing adequate care for an ageing population

A good point about choice. Still for choice, Ron?

A woman will always have a choice to end her pregnancy, the question is, will she be able to get a safe and legal abortion? Wealthy women, will continue to do what they always did, have a safe, discrete abortion. Other women will die.

Me too, I want a public version of everything. Publically owned hockey teams, department stores, gas stations, clothing manufacturers, the whole nine yards. Let's nationalize CIBC too, just for sheer incompetence.

Did I say anything about abortion ? No, but if I am going to have words put in my mouth let me at least say them.
There are procedures that are medically necessary and those that are not.
Our universal health care system claims to pay for those that are.
My daughter just had her fourth child. Te first three were girls.
When my grandson was just born. They did pay to cut the umbilical cord, but did not circumcise.
She had to take him to a private clinic a few days later to have this procedure done. $110.00 later.
Our universal health scare system will pay for an abortion or a sex change operation for a prisoner in a federal prison.
Are these medically necessary ? No.
This system is screwed up, and you want me to agree to the status quo ? I don't think so.
GM foods causing health problems ? You mean more of a health problem than the millions of Africans who died due to your famous lefty Maude Barlow of The Council of Canadians, who spearheaded a movement to convince flaky leaders like Mugabe that the tonnes of GM modified corn and grain donated by western countries should be destroyed and not fed to the starving people.
Or the DDT that was banned with pressure from the stupid western environmentalists which still results in millions of deaths caused by Malaria.
Please lefties, explain all this to me.

It's like this, Ron. People have a God given, Divine right to a not to have their health and life endangered so that Monsanto can maximize it's profit by creating a monopoly which puts all the food supply in peril. Perhaps you think eating only organic will protect you. No. The food supply is being contaminated by dangerous, potentially mass murdering action by companies like this and their accomplices, our politicians and their hangers on.

actions...

At the very least these people need to go to prison. You're all for sending criminals to jail who commit crimes that are invisible compared to this one.

I don't get it, why would Monsanto want to kill all their customers ?

bpither, reading various experiments here and there on the web still leaves the problem of lacking context. Its an area where I expect someone else to do the homework, someone who is paid to do it. I don't want our health care system designed by a guy that can type phrases into google. Where studies have been done, especially if they compare/contrast with the Cdn system, I will happily read them but to just google around it would be easy to find whatever you wanted to find.

As for privatization being a swear word, I didn't say that, I just like to cut through the bs codewords such as "creative solutions" and "flexibility". If privatization isn't a swear word to you then use it, don't hide from it.

And finally, W-5 is not exactly an unbiased source either. Eric Malling has been quite clear about his politics in the past and he would happily attempt to blame the NDP for anything he could. I lived there, I know what went on. A more crooked bunch of politicians has seldom been seen in Canada which is why the Conservative party there ceased to exist and now call themselves the Saskatchewan Party.

Ron, Monsanto is clear that they want to own the world food supply. Who wouldn't? They rely on gov'ts to help them force their seeds onto farmers. In the interests of greater yields of course.

It comes down to ideology, do you think its right for a private company to own the world's seed? I don't, many have no problem with it.

No I wouldn't want any one company own all of anything, but there must be an upside to being able to grow a grain without water for instance. I would think that would be good for Africans for instance
I may be naive, but in my area they grow great corn named Silverill. I met the man who developed this strain. He worked for The Dept. of Agriculture in Sask. in the 60'. He was on vacation here and was very surprised and proud to see his corn being grown locally.
He developed this strain by cross pollination over years. Now is this a frankencorn ? It sure is easy to grow and fits nicely into our growing season.
How is this different than a nectarine, half apple half peach.
Why do I need to fear this ?

Darn right there is. But being as its our food I don't want the company getting a free pass when it comes to oversight. Too often the companies themselves are the ones doing the testing to make sure its safe. And Monsanto lies. That was demonstrated in a French court. So we can't trust them.

Now if public agencies have done long term testing of the effects of GM food and its proven safe and if Monsanto is prevented from control of the world's food supply by perhaps releasing the seed into the public domain and getting rid of the crap whereby farmers have to buy new seed every year then sure, great.

But how safe is it when farmers no longer have their own seed supply? The world can't be dependent on Monsanto seed deliveries.

Ron, sorry, just realized I didn't fully answer your question.

The scary difference between the example you raise and Monsanto is that your Sask friend wasn't required by anyone wishing to use his seed. Anyone can use it and get more seed from it, its what I mean by public domain.

Frank, how about treating Monsanto like a pharmaceutical company. Give them the monetary incentive to invest in R & D, by giving them exclusivity on their products for a set amount of time, then turn it over to generic manufacturers.

Well exactly, Monsanto needs to make money in order to do the research and they don't make any if their seed is in the public domain. Or if their crops don't need their own pesticides etc to protect them.

So the problem would become how to improve people's food supply without worrying about getting the money to do the research.

Almost cries out for public ownership wouldn't you say? Perhaps even on an international level? Through universities even?

And it also goes without saying that if the creation of this seed was in the public domain then there would be no secrecy and it would be a lot easier to figure out if the resulting food is safe to eat over the long term because the profit motive wouldn't be driving the seed to be introduced into the food supply until testing had been completed. And there would be no need for suicide seeds and stuff like that.

To Ron (and everyone else):
Its strange and refreshing to hear you ask meaningful questions, Ron. I'll easily oblige you. Monsanto is all for altering genes in seeds to the point that seeds will all be one generational. This means that the seeds produced will never grow another crop. Now. How would any farmer in their right mind like to have to buy their seeds from Monsanto, year after year?

This is the tip of it. It is a medically proven fact that when we put the average 70 year old on the autopsy table, the liver and pancreas are nearly double their normal size. We think that all the liver does is clean blood, or all the pancreas does is create insulin, but both glands produce all of the enzymes needed to break down foods.

If the enzymes aren't present in the foods that we eat, either because of Genetic Modification for so called higher yield's or pasturization, processing, preserves or cooking, (any temps over 118 degrees F wet, or 150 degrees dry. When our bodies run a fever, that's what the body is trying to do, disrupt mirobial invader enzymes... malaria is an excellent example) what happens is the liver and pancreas must create the enzymes that would have normally be present within the same food food sources. Most people force their bodies to do this over a lifetime. Major amounts of energy and stress are placed on the liver and pancreas to do this. When we sprout seeds or eat "living" foods, we get these enzymes, giving our glands a needed break.

As for your proponing DDT as a viable alternative to control Malaria bearing mosquito's, the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, tells it all, and its date of publication reveals how long we've known about the ineffectiveness of sprays on all life forms. A wealth of information has come since to support everything she talks about, and yet, it hasn't stopped us from producing 3 times the environmentally deadly chemicals that have been known to be ineffectual as blanket treatments.

Back to Monsanto. They are also into milk cow hormonal production. Currently, 70% of all U.S. milk is Monsanto produced milk. Europe and Canada won't touch it. Monsanto lobbying has worked in buying U.S. government to look the other way. A Holstein cow that produces 10 gallons a day, produces an extra 1.5 to 2 gallons at the great expense of the consumer.

Milk Udders are continually infected. Bacteria that has been destroyed by antibiotics has created a gradual depletion of immune system response with consumption. After 20 - 25 years of Monsanto milk, people will end up walking into a hospital with a staff infection and end up dying from it 6 months later in that same hospital, because antibiotics won't work to control infections.

Why would Monsanto risk killing its own customers? (certainly reduce life expectancy on a wide scale basis) For the money and power, Ron. Did you think it was for any other reason? Oh. Thats right. Everyone has a right to choose this. Monsanto has a right to exploit our naivity and the systems that are here to serve us to make a crooked buck... we have right to tell them to go F... themselves... in court, if needed. In the markets. With goverment. Any way we can.
Of course, you can always chose less governmental control and regulation, like the U.S. did... for the money.

There is a market for one generational seeds in terms of growing crops for bio fuels. With this, it doesn't matter if the enzymes are there or not to aid in human or animal digestion.

Nevertheless, GM foods must PROVE that they can outperform natural seeds with no risks to the environments. For anyone who says, "take this GM seed for drought, or wet years and you'll get good results, proven over the last 10 years." I would say "you can predict the weather? I can grow this crop or that crop for those conditions and its been proven for 100's to thousands of years." I doubt that this proof exists other than in propaganda, with tests done in ideal conditions(fertilizers, sprays, etc.) but I'm open to being proven wrong.

Regardless, the risks of cross pollination and natural seed availability have not been addressed, and these are major issues.

Seedless crops of fruits and vegetables that have been genetically modified also need mentioning.

Its nice to have an ass every now and then, but if you want power, you go with a horse and if you want a mountain climber, you go with a donkey. At the end of the their lives, the ass will leave you nothing. The horse and donkey will leave you more horses and donkeys.

Regardless of breeded purpose, all of the plant, tree and bush energies go into producing nutrients for the seed to grow. As a result of growing seedless varieties, we now have oranges with no vitamin C. The pulp around the seeds, have greatly diminished nutrient supplies. Genetically modified seeds are no joke when it comes to nutrition (or mor accurately a lack of it).

Anyone in the know who is into prevention and life longevity is dead set against it, and for good reason. It is an abomination of life, with little to offer us, other than the potential to grow higher yield crops for energy, and at this point, due to seed variety, and weather unpredictability, yield increases remain unproven, except in theory. Scary, that its unregulated, and has become such a threat so quickly, with no one knowing the issues. Where is our media? MEDIA, WAKE UP! Are you all bought too?

Creating horse races to sell papers by calling allegations, scandals, is bad enough. When will you all report real stories? When will the media do its job? A great shame is coming. Believe it. Your names are next to what you write!

Your ok, Donald Rutstein and others like you. But we have alot of biased, opinioned without facts, reporting going on in this country and its creating some ugly results.

Again I have to reiterate - get the ideology out of the discussion - privatization is as loaded a word as any other. It expresses the sentiment and fear in our culture that a fully private and shareholder driven company can resolve all problems at all times. I don't agree. That's why I use the words flexibility or creative solutions which in part embraces the concept of unions as providers of care, workers as co owners and participants in the decision making process, private companies providing blood tests and MRI scans which are already part of the status quo as well as the important non profit sector. Right now a worker is never asked to make a decision on anything unless the provincial government gives them a very limited mandate whereby their only recourse is defensive (strike for example). Frank I don't think you have even bothered to research the Swedish system. Of course our political culture is different! MY POINT again is for of us to intiate due diligence and explore alternatives. For starters you can wallow your way through an English version of a 68 page summary of the Royal Commission on Profit and Non Profit participation in the Swedish Health Care System http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2982/a/44570
The commission was set up the the Social Democratic government of the day which had a negotiated agreement of parliamentary (non coalition) support from Green and Left (the old Communist Party) parties. Or you can start by looking at the numerous articles published by the Frontier Centre about the Swedish model
http://www.fcpp.org/publication_type.php?ArticleID=10&SubCategoryID=2
I have been indirectly involved with the Health Care Sector for 10 years as I looked after sick parents. Every day I get on my bike and see Dad who is at the Extended Care facility for Veterans at Brock Fahrni. The morale is low - granted Martin has his share of responsibility for the cutbacks to health care...but we were clearly in a terrible state 10 years ago and governments of varying stripes - Conservative, Liberal and NDP cut back on health care to get our country and the provinces back on track. As Janice Mckinnon alluded to in her book on her role as an NDP Finance Minister in the nineties you can't just reneged/default on debt - You won't be able to borrow from anyone thereafter except for ruinous interest rates.

RE: correction. Its seedless varieties that have diminished nutrients.

Great discussion on genetically modified food by the way. My brother is an organic farmer on Mayne Island and very, very knowledgeable on GM vs. organic although we have our lovingly disagreeable moments. There is an interesting article in Harpers on organic farming in Cuba published in April which may interest some. But I'd rather we stick to the main article in question.

Blither, you have your own ideology that is apparent and as well, the thread is a conversation. You may not wish to bother with other topics and feel free not to read that which doesn't interest you.

It's not that they want to kill people who are customers of their customers, it is that they don't want to spend the money necessary to test properly their products. And, in cases where it shows that the product is unsafe, it is cheaper to bribe officials so they won't enact mandatory labelling than it is to scrap their products which in their eyes hopefully will create the monopoly that ensures the sale of their product. It's not that they want to it's that they are throwing loaded dice with you and I the loser.

...enact labelling laws, or in cases such as the corn studies pull their products off the market totally. Or, gasp, have them liable for damages, but hey, corporations have bribed the US to limit damages, I'm sure we'll be close behind.

Perhaps, but they are apparently using human genes in rice now. Sound appetizing?

Like world wide famine.

It would be somewhat less dire for humanity if at least all GM food were homicidal (terminator) seed so that there wouldn't be danger to the food supply other than that crop. Even that they would not do.

Yes, Frank, those ways of dealing with agriculture for the 'public good' provided safety for years before they started to strangle the hell out of gov't before attempting to drown it in the bathtub.

Can't have the public good or even safety interfere with profit.

What's my ideology redrivergirl??? Describe it to me! I refer to numerous examples of NON ideological approaches to health care delivery outside of the "Left-Right" red herring divide. I will take anything that has proven an effective remedy elsewhere and hopefully by tweaking its application we can resolve some issues which have been an experiential part of my life for years. I have not read a single refutation, just descriptive rubbish which waxes and puffs the proverbial oh so Canadian debate or "conversation" if you will on health care. Have you done your homework?

Bpither, you mention morale at the care facility and fail to acknowledge the most obvious cause of that lack of morale. You ignore the idea that there is nothing wrong with a fully public system that is funded with strict oversight. You don't mention the principle of universality which is what we are leaving behind. It is clear that Sweden etal also underwent and are undergoing a concerted effort to undermine their health care system and other entitlement programs in order to introduce privatization. And, that their response was to that.

This is entirely subjective and it probably is in response to not hearing what you want to hear. In your tone of super rationality, you leave behind the most obvious rebutal to your points, declaring them '...just descriptive rubbish...' and you reveal some contempt for, if not Canada, then views not your own, when you label the 'conversation' on health care, '...the proverbial oh so Canadian debate...'.

I don't believe our system is broken.
It is being gutted, undermined and destroyed by those 'robbing the public purse' and betraying the public trust who have been bribed either by trips and campaign donations and/or ceo positions and their equivilant when they leave gov't.

A vicious con game is being enacted on all Western Nations right now. It's as plain as can be. And, I'm not playing.

So, what you are seemingly so rationally imploring Canadians to do is the same as asking for us to take our wallet out in the most dangerous neighbourhood in town, reknown for it's muggings, just to check if we really have the 100 dollars in it, that we already know we have, and lay it out on the sidewalk for all to view, just in case we really don't have it.

No thanks.

It isn't a left/right debate at all. 70 % of Canadians want a universal public system.

And, I no more believe the links you provided than I do BC gov't websites. Why is Sweden 'opening to more private providers'? Please don't say it's the problems of modern medicine. We know it's the intense lobbying etc that those multi-nationals who eyed our public services with greed to create a market for themselves.

Accenture is even doing elections in parts of the US. Yep. With disasterous results. Well, they're getting fired at a fast rate too.

Also, you really can't provide any assurance that any changes won't mean a system as bad the US's. Yet, you dismiss that probably reality with a question? Why do we have to compare ours with theirs? I personally think it would be worse. Just as their own system is declining in shocking ways. They have to wait to see a dr too, that is if the insurance company says they can.

We are right next door and as our other entitlements prove we will be effected by our proximity.

Just because some physicians on board with this, may think there will still be a single payer ie gov't and the taxpayer, doesn't mean they won't be betrayed as well. Of course, they will be.

bpither, I checked your links, The Frontier Foundation?

Look, if you want to say you don't care where the ideas come from, left or right etc then that's great. But a Fraser Institute type think tank funded by the private sector is not where I would go to look for unbiased sources of information.

You may consider their raison d'etre to be a red herring but I think its necessary to look at that stuff. Its no coincidence that Canada is suddenly full of think tanks in every region of the country feeding our news organizations with material funded by the private sector.

In response why don't you go the Centre for Policy Alternatives site and read their views on health care in this country

http://www.policyalternatives.ca

Going to a right-wing website and swallowing their prescription is not exactly "doing your homework".

Anyway, your other link was to the Swedish government website and I have been reading up on things there. Its interesting that although there are small fees in the Swedish system it is mostly funded by taxpayers. In fact, fee payment is not allowed to exceed $136 Cdn per year.

There is also a national taxpayer funded drug plan that covers everyone and no one has to pay more than $272 Cdn a year for their prescriptions.

Also, although the private side did increase during the 1990's (under a Conservative gov't) it remains even now at only 10% of the system. Far less than in Canada. Private care and private insurance remain marginal.

There are also extensive benefits covering things like staying home for months to take care of a sick relative.

85% of health care in Sweden is publicly funded, compared to 70% in Canada.

According to this article, bpither1, the delivery of for-profit health care in Sweden is being seriously questioned:

Article, "Physicians for a National Health Program" January, 2005:

"For-profit delivery has also been problematic in Sweden. Daniel Cohn of Simon Fraser University documents how Stockholm County transferred operation of St. Goran’s Hospital to private hands in 2001 and started contracting services to for-profit facilities. Those facilities rejected seriously ill patients, who faced longer public wait times because public resources had been diverted to for-profit providers. For-profit facilities treated patients with minor problems a practice known as “cream-skimming.” Swedes who most needed care were least likely to get timely access. Sweden’s national government has halted further privatization."

Just wanted to alert people to a very interesting column by Jeffrey Simpson in this weekend's Globe and Mail. He raised some verrrry interesting things about Stephen Harper's campaign announcements and promises. It's enlightening and frightening. I'm not much of a fan of the Globe anymore, especially after Heather Mallick left in December, but this column should be required reading for every voter if they want to consider themselves informed.

Keep up the good discussions. This is the best The Tyee has been in ages.

Just some interesting stats from 1999 using OECD figures

% of population over 65

In the US its 12.7%
In Canada its 12.4%
In Sweden its 17.8%

US spends $4,178 per person
Canada spends $2,312
Sweden $1,746

Canada spends 9.5% of its GDP on health but only 6.6% is in the public sector.

In the US its 13.6% and 6.1% respectively.

In Sweden the numbers are 8.4% and 7.0% respectively

Average life spans for men are 77 in Sweden, 76 in Canada and 74 in the US

Care spaces per 1000
Canada 4.7
Sweden 3.8
USA 3.7

Number of doctors per 1000 people.

In Canada its 2.1
In the US its 2.7
and in Sweden its 3.1

Obviously it hurts Canada to have the US right next door with the same language and much of the same culture. But unless we adopt Cree as our national language I don't see what can be done about greener pastures

lynn, interesting you mention St. Goran's, from what I'm reading here that one hospital represents a healthy proportion of privatized health care in Sweden on its own.

Hey Sunny, could you give us the Reader's Digest version? I'm not a Globe Insider and after Gary Mason's hatchet job last spring I never will be.

The 70/30 split of what Canadians want is also in question. While it is reasonable to assume that the government shouldn't foot the bill for non threatening operations, such as sex changes and cosmetic surguries and breast implants (outside of the realm of breast cancers and accidents), things like dental and nasal passage blockages from broken noses should be covered more extensively by government and the reasons are clear and obvious.

Bad teeth lead to poisons that can cause heart and vascular damage, poor dietary absorption of foods, and overall poor health, which has protected rights under the constitution.

Similarily, blocked nasals block the absorption of oxygen, leading to declining health and lung disorders in later years and these are just two examples of many. In other words, our 70/30 system should be more like 90/10, with major efforts put forth in the area of disease PREVENTION. Our public system can't expand, because it has been overburdened from not having done so.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the reason why diets, for example are not being funded by the Governments of this country, is because there is a major movement being put forth against it from university professors across Canada and the U.S., at the educational level, as well as HMO's that put them up to it.

This level filters to government, which is also majorly pressured by HMO's on everything from reduced food and drug regulations, to limited budgets on PREVENTION itself. I've said it before, I'll say it again. There's no money in disease prevention for the corporate private sector. There is money in disease prevention for private services, but they are heavily underfunded and it should be public service in terms of prevention to begin with.

Is there money in it for government? Is it in the best interests of every Canadian? Of course! The savings would be phenominal. I can't prove it, because there are no models, but common sense dictates that healthy people don't get sick. They get rattled from time to time from accidents, but they don't get sick. We live in an unhealthy nation, and the stats suggesting this are ugly.

The system is overburdened for all of these reasons, mainly the lack of emphasis on health prevention caused almost solely by ignorance and greedy corruption, but most of all, because of the lack of public awareness to all issues, and the media should take its share of the blame.

Stats on Swedens models are heavily appreciated. ;-)

I'm reading that, too, Frank. It's interesting, as you say as to who is providing the information as well. Those advocating free-market medicine are championing privatization in their article in 2001, (I think when St. Goran's was transferred to a private company). Very gung ho about its benefits.

But the article I quoted above, written in 2005 by a group of physicians is starting to reveal the more detrimental human results of privatization.

Also would like to correct my spelling of Roy Romanow's name above..I'm reading a book on the Russian Revolution and steeped in the Romanov's right now so some kind of tranference going on on my part I guess...so sorry, Mr. Romanow. :-)

Erwin don't be such a nerd. There's ideology and there's what works. The Canadian Medicare model works better than the US model. It costs less and provides better care, no matter what health metrics you care to examine.

As for choice, if that's what you're really interested in, there is far more choice under the Canadian system. You have more choice over your health care provider, you have more choice over the kind of care you can receive. You don't get that kind of choice under the US system. HMO's in particular get to decide what kind of care you get, who you get to go to to get that care and the extent to which they'll cover different proceedures. In Canada, your physicians and you decide the extent of your care.

The only kind of choice you seem to think is important is not having the government involved in any health care decisions. You'd rather eliminate all the other freedoms that Medicare provides you in order to adhere to an ideology. Now that has got to be one of the best definitions of idiocy.

Sigh.... look brain there isn't a physician I've ever met who would deny diet is an important part of health, but you're jumping off the deep end with your demonization of university professors. The medical profession relies (and university professors in the hard sciences) on scientific evidence over a broad range of repeated studies to determine what works where health is concerned. Now it may be that studies into diet have not been funded to the extent they need to be, but to suggest that there is a conspiracy is simply foolish.

Anecdotal evidence simply is not good enough. Uncontrolled variables without control groups and a structured methodology of repeated experiementation using standard scientific procedures means any data gathered could be wrong for any number of unknown reasons. Scientific methodology works, but it works over time after numerous studies that provide data repeatedly supporting a particular hypothesis. The emphasis is on repeated support.

Good! Now that's dialogue. Frank you must be able to figure out from my postings that I favour taxpayer supported social programs which do provide a safety net not unlike the Scandinavian models. When I lived in Denmark for 5 years (a year in Norway) I paid 45% of my income in taxes but got a lot for it which is a shared sentiment by many in that country. My effort here is to get people to work a little harder at finding ways to prevent a worsening of our medicare problems which goes beyond just an increase in funding from the public purse. I posted a couple of examples of where we could all do a bit of personal research only as a primer. You can call the Frontier Institute Right Wing although I don't necessarily embrace this description, just as I wouldn't call the Centre for Policy Alternatives a Left Wing institute. There is always something wonky/biased about any institute because they have to play ball somewhat with their financial subscribers. But we can all learn from everyone. The funny thing about the concept of Left and Right is that historically they can mean different things to different people at different times. I try to look at what works. I mean if a Nurses Union runs a number of private clinics is this a manifestation of the Right or Left? The world is constantly changing and so must Medicare. If the Canadian system ranks 30th in the world according to WHO in terms of value for every dollar spent don't you think it would be in our interest to look at what the number one country is doing to improve outcomes? Throwing a lot of money at a schlerotic system doesn't mean anyone has an incentive to change it. Lynn I'm glad you steered me to this site PNHP, but they do not dispute the need for the private delivery of care which is a part of their preamble on the home page "Physicians for a National Health Program is a not-for-profit organization of physicians, medical students, and other health care professionals that support a national health insurance (NHI) program. Specifically, we believe that a single-payer system (where the government finances health care, but keeps the delivery of health care to mostly private control) is the only solution to solving the United States"If you read my previous postings you will notice I never mentioned St.Gorans in Stockholm as there are problems and this is the case with any privately run hospital which will put the benefit of shareholders before patients. But the Nurses Union point still stands as a creative solution. Redrivergirl I DID mention the reason why the morale is low - I said the workers had their wages cut back by an across the board 15%. I also mentioned that at UBC (Purdy Pavilion)the administrator for Vancouver Coastal Health refused to acknowledge that a memo had been sent to her from the Nurses Union. In this respect you can call me super rational but I prefer to see in human terms an exemplary failure of communication and a failure to allow for ALL members of the labour market to fully participate in the decision making process. It's NOT always about the money when you are unappreciated and downgraded by government fiat, making a difficult situation worse. I've seen how stressed health care employees are by their work conditions and lack of participation in the decisions being made for them. Maybe, just maybe we should take a look at the clinics privately run by the nurses and privately funded by the government in Sweden.

I meant publically funded in my last sentence

bpither, but isn't what the nurses are doing in Sweden not that different from clinics here? Here 4 or 5 doctors get together and create a practice but they get their money from the public purse and with that money they agree to abide by the framework of Medicare. No extra-billing, no turning away of anyone with a health care need etc.

Private delivery but under the public umbrella.

As I understand it that's what the nurses there are doing. Or are you saying they bill patients directly outside the Swedish system and are free to turn away anyone without the necessary funds?

Is The Brain and bpither1 married ? Please give us a short snappy comment. I only say this because you may have something to say, but many may be skipping over your posts due to there length.

Is it? I believe there is no end to creative solutions within a manate of fully funded public health care.

Ah, the old, '...it's inevitible.' Just surrender your money and you way of life. There's no point fighting. sigh. The only way medicare needs to change is to return to fully funded public care and creative, innovative programs within that criteria.

And, from the quote you quoted, asuming we are to take you at face value, as I said before, what makes you think our gov't will be willing, or even able, under NAFTA for instance, to remain a taxpayer pay private delivery system? Hmm? Especially with the insurance lobby. Drs who are falling for that will be sorry when they find themselves dealing with insurance companies who treat them as if they were about to steal from them, rather than the gov't who at least they had some sway over at times. In the US, like the authors seem to be saying, I'd agree. Goodness knows that keeps the Gods of individualism and capitalism intact so the drs might get on board somewhat easier. For them it's a step forward. For us, a major step backwards. If you listened to B's speech this weekend you'd have heard just what they have in store for their meager as they are entitlement programs. And, it's all rolling North.

What follows is the post I read. Perhaps you mentioned in prior to this post. I don't see an acknowledgement of the stress involved when your very own gov't publically states your unworthiness because they are doing corporate bidding to drive down wages. People who went into that field who are primarily women, cared about their work and their patients. They had a living wage and a good work environment. Why steal their dignity? No room for the workers' capital - his labour - in this new system. No they must be made servile.

And, finally, we were not in terrible shape financially. We were under a critical mass of 20 years of deceit designed to steal our entitlements. Many countries are kicking the IMF to the curb as we should have. And, will!

And, Canada doesn't have the population to sustain very many physicians who opt out of insurance plans. Soon you'll be making a fraction of your wage now. Even in the US that is true.

And, it's a lie to say we were in terrible shape 10 years ago in the heath care system. Problems aside, I am getting far less superior care now and having more trouble accessing care appropriately, in spite of the fact I have a wonderful family physician who I've known for years.

Ms. Red
I admire your willingness to fight to the bitter end. And there's no ' but ' about to come.
On one hand you say there is not enough doctors and then you say there are too many.
You say everything is fine in the medical system, yet 16 minutes ago you admit it's worse.
My families experiences have been positive.
And I do not doubt the dedication of the employees, yet I am a realist that can see that whatever you fear has already happened years ago.
The Supreme Court ruling, and we all know how the left usually loves them, has confirmed in the most legal terms that the monopoly has ended.
Recent experiments with reducing wait times for specific surgeries, used two operating rooms. One private and one public. The results were remarkable, which means we can reasonably work together, if Albertans can.
It's painfully obvious that even more changes are coming.

To James Burns:
Am I? Am I off the deep end to point fingers at university profs? Look at the markets and ask yourself how many CEO's were former professors and connect the dots. Its as transparent as glass, and did they get their ideas on their own? Connect the dots.

bpither: Those US physicians are endorsing a system of universal medicare very akin to what Canada has had for years. By single payer they mean government would collect all health care fees and pay out all health care costs. Exactly the structure doctors have abided by here for years. As Frank says above doctors abide by and under the framework of Medicare, which is exactly what these US physicians are calling for. It is that very framework that has been so crucial to our success in the past and it that same framework that is now under attack.

These are the benefits of the system proposed by those US physicians ( which if you look closely is our Canadian system, before all the neo-cons declared our Canadian system not working )... and set about to weaken it in a calculated attempt to destroy it... fueled by their own ignorance and greed:

"All Americans would receive comprehensive medical benefits under single payer. Coverage would include all medically necessary services, including rehabilitative, long-term, and home care; mental health care, prescription drugs, and medical supplies; and preventive and public health measures.

Care would be based on need, not on ability to pay.

Each person, regardless of ability to pay would receive high-quality, comprehensive medical care, and the free choice of doctors and hospitals".

Frank said:

Ya, Gary Mason's Vancouver??? Give me a break! What tripe. He fawned all over Taylor, Campbell, and every other Liberal candidate with huge page 1 flattering photographs, while spewing unsubstantiated concerns about the NDs and tiny, inside photos of their candidates. THE DAY AFTER the election Mason wrote that the Globe (he) focused mostly on the Campbell Liberals because "that's what people wanted to hear." Amazing brass. I still read the Globe but the weekend version only, and mostly for it's fluffy lifestyle stuff now.

Anyway, Jeffrey Simpson's column should be available on their website. It's hard to summarize because he brings up a number of different concerns regarding their explosion of promises, specifically that they've not shown how they will actually pay for them, and how others just aren't do-able period.

Simpson also talks about the strategy the C's are using this election, which is to make announcements so frequently that before anybody really gets a chance to parse one, here comes another, and another, and another, leaving the media, and by extension, the interested public, breathless and rather impressed. Jeffrey Simpson lists all the C party promises to date, along with the costs (billions upon billions) plus their promise to also fund all L party's commitments too (except for child care)!

He goes on to say that the GST tax cut Harper proposed won't help poor people as they already get a GST rebate, and that it's one of those economic ideas that is 99-per-cent politics (i.e. empty, hot air). Harper's has promised to correct the "fiscal imbalance" with the provinces without any details about how he would do it. You can imagine what uproar that would entail if he actually went ahead with it. He also lists all the promises Harper has made, and taken together, juxtaposed against one another, they make for a very befuddled "platform."

That's actually the one thing that worries me most about the possibility of Harper becoming PM, even in a minority government. Harper has demonstrated such poor judgement over the past years he's been head of the C's. His first instincts seem always to be wrong, then he changes tracks once the mainstream Canadian public shows they want none of what he's proposed (e.g. Iraq war). There are other examples, but as my breakfast is waiting I can't bring them to mind just now). It's surprising, but Harper has time and time again shown his judgement is just not sound.

Anyway, I'd suggest you check the Globe's website to see if you can read Jeffrey Simpson's column there. Any serious voter of every political stripe owes it to themselves to bone up on the concerns Simpson has raised. His column is entitled "Let's put a price on those Conservative treats" and it's in the Saturday January 7th edition.

Sunny, relax, The Conference Board of Canada has costed out the Con platform and claim it is sustainable, and will also allow for 3 Billion dollars per year to pay down the debt, as planned.

A relaxed annarchist. How reassuring.

This trait seems to be one that most, if not all, neo-cons have.

I should say neo-con politicans and economists because I believe the voter often isn't aware who these characters are because they lie constantly.

Lynn
How do I differ from the preamble by the PNHP? Did I not say over and over again publically funded and privately delivered? Does this have to mean a privately run hospital beholden more to shareholders than patient care? Of course not! The very framework of the Canadian system IS privately delivered care in SOME instances regardless of 2005 or 30 - 40 years ago. Doctors are not salaried employees of the provinces. They are private and negotiate a fee schedule. All blood work is conducted by MDS laboratories. You get a referral from your personal/private physician and you go to this privately run company and get the results at no cost to you. Now maybe there is a discrepancy in patient care from MDS since I don't know if this a public company with shareholders as investors. I haven't heard any complaints from people! MY POINT again (and again, and again) which is not being HEARD because people see red when they read the word private is that the marketplace does indeed play a role, and this has always been the case, in the Canadian system, something which the Economist magazine has pointed out when comparing the British to the Canadian medical systems ,where publically funded and publically delivered has been more the norm (UK). And by the way - I read everything from the National Post to the Tyee and much much more and I have no ideological foundation. It's just that everytime I hear Canadians speak about our sacred cow as if everything in medicare is publically provided and always has been and lets get back there as we have lost our way...sorry to pop your bubble but it is not true.

The best way to save our healthcare system is to find the humour in everything, spend at least a few hours laughing every day and never ever ever do anything except sleep when you're tired.

bpither1:But what is implied in your comments is that you would like to push privatization farther and have the public continue to fund it....this present surge of privatization is using our money for funding and at the same time our patsy health authorities are doing the bidding of a BC Liberal neo-con government in helping to decimate our public health system.

In our small town, an almost $450,000 slush fund was created by taking money out of our hospital funding (closing acute care beds, letting nurses go etc)...proclaiming our public hospital was unsustainable and then under that favourite word "flexibility" they created a slush fund for private health care interests...all very deceptively done. So private care was propped up at the expense of the public sytem and at the expense of lives.

Just as the working conditions of nurses at St. Pauls's were made almost unbearable so that they would would want to quit public care and work at a private clinic where there was less stress and better working conditions. But those improved conditions at private clinics were made possible at the expense of the public system.

These are the games arrogantly being played with people's lives.

I have spent a great deal of time lately in the emergency ward of our local hospital as my Dad is seriously ill. There was one brave nurse on duty who was extremely over-worked trying to handle everything. In the past I remember a lot more nurses being present. My dad got the last available bed after a long wait and he was in very dire condition. It made me wonder where all the other people there would be placed.... now remember that that privatization slush fund closed down needed beds and let nurses go...nurses and beds that were greatly needed.

So they will say the public system is not working but it is they who have calculatedly made it so. We were doing quite well before all the tampering began.

I think Medicare is our sacred cow and for very good reason. Not that the cow couldn't stand a little grooming now and then...we just don't want it cut up into little private pieces and made into hamburger...with a filet mignon price tag.

Who are you going to vote for Lynn? You know that the NDP in BC pushed the private delivery care envelope further down the road. They allowed for private clinics and they hired MDS (it was Metro McNair at the time)to conduct blood tests instead of provincially run laboratories. I know that MDS pushes long and hard for privatization in this country, that is to say a shareholder driven kind of privatization, and that there is a lack of open accountability which is a failure of regulation by government. At the same I am not for a moment fooled by the Liberals in this province as I have seen and read about their heavy handed slicing and dicing of health care. As an example of small town denigration of services - closing down the emergency ward in Nelson and sending acute care patients to Trail for example was criminal, and I am sure this has caused a death or two. It is another example of how resources are being redeployed without real decision making input from all partners in the labour market. I alluded to the nurses at UBC and my experience at the lack of respect by administrators for their frontline workers, even if they hotly deny it. It is just the nature of the beast. This is why, again,
I have suggested a different approach which is really flexible and in the case of Canada unusual where you genuinedy treat everyone as Stakeholders and not Shareholders. I suggested that nurses, our frontline workers, run and operate clinics within properly regulated public funding guidelines. Now if this is implied privatization then so be it...but it is not the sort of privatization you are thinking about. If it will help my cause any I have had long discussions with people who will vote Conservative or Liberal in this election who also view my idea as encouraging a LEFT WING (oh brother)entrenchment of Union power. The status quo anywhere whether of the "Right" or "Left" have a lot at stake by clinging to the same old tired ideas without thinking the whole process through. Because it is vilified by everyone who insists that I should instead take one stand or another as they define it I remain ever more certain that this proposal needs to be looked at for the benefit of all.

Pushed? Nope. In the mid-90's as the Paul Martin cuts hit every province in Canada it was the BC NDP that did all it could to prevent health care from eroding here. By diverting money from other programs and running deficits to make up for the lost federal money.

bpither, I have nothing against your ideas. Will happily look at them case by case. You just got my back up at first by using loaded codewords.

There is nothing scary in nurses or doctors running clinics. I see it as no different than now. What I do see scary is shares in Van Gen being traded on the VSE

.

With which I entirely agree, bpither1. Frank saying this much better than I.

While acknowledging that Canadians really know very little about the 'American system' while they know very little about our 'Canadian' system (heck, we really don't know much about it either), I like to say that "Americans can quickly get all the health care they can't afford and we slowly get the health care we have already paid for."

The Conference Board?!? I worked with them a few years ago, and they're the Fraser Institute of Ontario. So, sure, they costed it out, and voila, it's just dandy, eh? Funny that the C's haven't bothered to cost it out so voters can have at it, isn't it? Oh, but then the Conference Board did it for them. Gotta watch these pseudu-official "institutions" and what sort of wolves are masquerading as sheep. Nice try Ronnie.